Hi Pierre-Louis
Thank you for your review
The problem I have is with the following code (not shown with diff)
if (dai_link->playback_only) has_capture = 0;
if (dai_link->capture_only) has_playback = 0;
So with this grand unification, all the loops above may make a decision that could be overridden by these two branches.
This was not the case before for DPCM, all the 'has_capture' and 'has_playback' variables were used as a verification of the dai_link settings with an error thrown e.g. if the dpcm_playback was set without any DAIs supporting playback.
I could understand so far.
Now the dailink settings are used unconditionally. There is one warning added if there are no settings for a dailink, but we've lost the detection of a mismatch between dailink and the set of cpu/codec dais that are part of this dailink.
But sorry I could understand this.
"There is one warning added if there are no settings for a dailink"
By [01/16] patch ? I think no warning is added. Or do you mean by [15/16] patch ?
"we've lost the detection of a mismatch between dailink and the set of cpu/codec dais that are part of this dailink"
Sorry I couldn't understand about this. Which mismatch detection we lost ?? Concrete sample / code / image is very helpful for me to well understanding.
Thank you for your help !!
Best regards --- Renesas Electronics Ph.D. Kuninori Morimoto